User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:51, 29 December 2011 editBoing! said Zebedee (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users96,327 edits →Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:03, 1 January 2025 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,863 edits →Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
	<big>'''Welcome to my talk page'''

			{{Archive basics
			\|archive = User talk:Beeblebox/Archive %(counter)d
			\|counter = 51
			\|headerlevel = 2
			\|maxarchivesize = 120K
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
			}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] -->

			{{archives
			\| collapsible = yes
			\| collapsed = yes
			\|search=yes
			\|image = ]
			\|title = tracks of previous discussions
			}}
			{{clear}}
			{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}


			]
	<span></small>
	{{~~archives~~}}		{{Admin tasks}}

	]I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.
			<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>

			{{clear}}
	]''' If you would rather communicate by email''', it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.

			−
			{{skip to top and bottom}}

			== December music ==
	] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
			{{User QAIbox
	</big>
			\| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
	</div>
			\| image_upright = 1.3
	]
			\| bold = ] · ] · ]
			}}
			November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in ]. Today is the last day for the election of arbitrators. Regarding my question to candidates like you, I found one so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, ]. There are two composers on the Main page today, ] and ]. I find the response of my friend ] to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? -- ] (]) 08:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

			] comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. I'd still like to know what you think about the Copland posts. --] (]) 16:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

			On the Main page today ] on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's ] from the ]. We ] today. --] (]) 20:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Staying true to form ==

			Listen today to the (new) ]. --] (]) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	The IP editor you blocked in the ] article immediately came back and made the same revert . Then he turned around and went to the talk page and.....well........ He's not going to comply. ] (]) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

	~~:Appears~~ ~~this~~ ~~issue~~ ~~has~~ ~~gone~~ ~~{{stale}}~~. ] (]) 19:47, 1 December ~~2011~~ (UTC)		I like your return to the well-known name. --] (]) 21:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Nope. He did it again today . He is also editing under the account ] and using the article talk page and my talk page to harrass RepublicanJacobite. ] (]) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

			:Totally my fault, I failed to anticipate that people would just start calling me "JSS" and I just did not care for that. I did make a new signature with another pop culture reference in it though. This time a bit less obscure. ] ] 21:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	== neo-geo Picture ==
			:: That, however, is an area I am blind for. I'm quite happy that my real name is short enough to be useful, and while I accumulated dirt associated with it it never became enough for me to make me think about a change. --] (]) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: Listen today to ]'s 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the ] when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with ], because he was on my ] this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --] (]) 16:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: I come to fix the cellist's name, with ] and new pics - look for red birds --] (]) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
	Hi
	I saw you uploaded a neo-geo cab picture. I'm trying to develop french neo-geo mvs article and i'm looking for pictures to illustrate it. If you still have your neo-geo cab, is it possible for you to upload pictures ?

			] from the past month (November 2024).
	what would be nice : front side with shot of the coin door, and the insert memory card area. a a shot really nearby butoon to show buttons and joysktiskcs. It it possible to take a picture (or some) of your mvs board without the crate that we can see components

			]
	Thanks before, and best regards --] (]) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

			] '''Administrator changes'''
	:Hi. Just got back in town and may be able to help with some of this soon. However I won't be able to provide a shot of the sticks and buttons, per ]. My NeoGeo is custom painted and the painting contains trademarked characters and weapons from Meal Slug. In case you haven't seen them, I have also uploaded ] and ], which are both on Commons and may be reused elsewhere. I can probably get some other useful shots such as you requested as well. ] (]) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	::Hi, yes i already used one of your pics, but i crooped it that it only shows the mvs system (i gave you copyright, the pic is on commons).
			\|]
	::OK, all shoots you can take are wellcome, upload what you can.
			\|]
	::I will try to add your neogeo cart --] (]) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
	== BigzMMA and Civility ==
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
			\|]
			\|]
			}}
			:] ]

			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by ] with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the ] entitled ]. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (]) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you ] (]) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist\|class=inline
	:Looks like that's now been referred elsewhere. ] (]) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|]
			\|]
			}}

			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	== Block of North Koreans on the board ==
			* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
			* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

			] '''Technical news'''
	Hello, Beeblebrox. I have just done something that I have never done before, namely over-ride another admin's block with a different block. You blocked ] with a username block. However, I was very unhappy with a block that invited the user to continue to edit ("Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username.") for a user whose only edits were vandalism. I have replaced the block with a vandalism only block. If you strongly disagree then please restore your original block: I will not regard it as wheel warring, and I will not make any objection. ] (]) 11:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
			* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

			] '''Arbitration'''
	:I wouldn't say I strongly disagree with it, but it does seem rather pointless to modify a block 19 days later just to change the reason, especially in light of the facts that they made exactly two edits, were never warned for vandalism as is normally done for a vandalism block, and have not appealed my block. Even if I had hardblocked them, the autoblock would be long expired by now so I'm unclear on why this was so upsetting to you, but whatever. ] (]) 05:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
			* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
			* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

			----
	::I'm afraid somehow I failed to notice that the block was 19 days old: I thought it was a new block. How on earth I made that mistake I can't imagine. Under the circumstances I agree that what I did was completely pointless. ] (]) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
			{{center\|{{flatlist\|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}<!--
			-->{{center\|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->
			==AfD on Parents Worship Day==

			Can you describe which comment convinced you that the article should be kept? I only see the canvassed small accounts spamming the routine coverage by the ] sources which is unhelpful when it comes to making claims about notability. ] (]) 11:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Recent Porchcorpter MfDs ==

			:I said I did not see a consensus to delete it, not that I personally believed it should be kept. ] ] 19:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	Was there a reason you didn't discuss the pages with him first, just taking them straight to MfD? Seems to me that this could have been done with a little more pleasantly. ] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> (]) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
	:He ~~has~~ ~~consistently~~ ~~been unreceptive~~ to ~~anything~~ I ~~have~~ to ~~say,~~ so it ~~seemed~~ ~~better~~ to ~~seek~~ a ~~consensus~~ ~~than~~ to ~~argue~~ with ~~him~~ ~~directly~~. ] (]) 22:35, 2 December ~~2011~~ (UTC)		::But there was consensus to delete it since all of the established editors either voiced for delete or merge/redirect. Those who voiced for keeping the article were all SPAs or canvassed editors with no prior participation in AfDs. ] (]) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't agree with that assessment. ] ] 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	::That's fair enough, for future reference, you could always come via me :) ] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> (]) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

			== comment on site ban request ==
	== ] ==

			Regarding ]: given ] and the immediately following one, it seems that the editor is just following through with their announced plans due to their discontent on having editing restrictions. ] (]) 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hi, as I explained on the talk page, this appears to have no content on the subject of the article: the infobox relates to a Town Council, not the same thing at all. So I reckon it has zero content and thus should be speedied. ]] 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	:I'm not positive that would get us around the problem, but that fact that ] is a bluelink does. I've deleted it as ]. ] (]) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

			:I missed that at the time, but I am very aware of his yearly tradition of asking each January for restrictions to be lifted. I still think vanishing would be a viable option though.
	::Note: It's not covered unless you count the redirect. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
			:I've seen the "block me or I'll do something to make you block me" approach a few times and I just think it's a really bad move. The user often comes back later like "ok I'm over it now, let me back in" and the answer is always a firm no. ] ] 22:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::It comes a bit too close to suggesting a clean start for my taste. But in any case, the point was that it doesn't sound like someone who's primarily concerned about being unable to stop editing. ] (]) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Oi put that back~~ ==		== ACE2040 ==

			I'm really sorry they didn't let you back on the committee - it proves how short sighted the electorate is. Nevertheless you're still an admin and that's important for one with your experience, so don't let the result put you off from trying again next year. The overall results will come as a relief for many, but WP has its first non-admin arb and at least one or two with very little admin experience. There will be a lot of talk about this result. It proves again that with so few contenders it's ''relatively'' too easy to get a seat - all but 2 got a pass mark. IMO it's time to either redesign the electoral system or chuck the whole Arbcom thing out and replace it with something else. There is a better gender balance this time, but it remains to be seen which of them will be around when they are needed. ] (]) 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	You just deleted ]. You deleted it without waiting. Undelete it thank you. I only started it yesterday and went to do something else and come back. You aren't supposed to delete anything so quickly as that if it is not vandalism and you know that or you shouldn't be permitted to delete anything. Thank you. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Hi, please read the thread directly above this one. Their own webpage, which you linked to in that article clearly identifies the organization as ''town'' council, and not a county council. That organization is already covered elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	::I'll just put what I had in <s>an</s> 2 edit confilt with you there and will read that then. If you want to get all picky you should click the link you claim it duplicates. Apologies for mixing up town and council in the title but I'd rather you just undelete it so I don't have to go all over the infobox again which actually took a little while. The content is supposed to be at ] at which the is no content currently. Is that okay? ] could be a redirect because there isn't one and it's just an easy mistake if you are looking through county councils. Sorry if I sound aggrivated now I am just surprised is all. 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)<font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font>
	:::I was in the way of not being in a rush about doing it either I might have done it tomorrow or something... <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::Your infobox is now at ] where you can work with it at your leisure until it is actually an article. Articles should normally have some content. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with at least one sentence on the subject. ] (]) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Spot on cheers. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

			:Thanks. While I'm obviously disappointed, I'm also pretty ok with it as the three top vote-getters are all people I am thrilled to see on the committee. Liz got NYB numbers, that's a hell of a mandate. I ran because the committee seemed to be in crisis and needed help, I'm now confident it will get that help.
	== Company Page ==
			:It does concern me to once again see neutral non-votes be a clear deciding factor for some candidates. I'm not sure why the solution is to that. I also don't think Daniel not being an admin at this exact moment is really big news as he can have his tools back any time he wants them. ] ] 01:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

			::I think there would have been a lot of tactical voting that affected the results. When I vote on such secret poll elections I vote only for the candidate(s) I want and usually neutral all the others - if I feel very strongly I might oppose one. At the end of the day, with the exception of your score, the rest of the result was for a fairly reasonable (one hopes) committee - if they fully understand the tasks and workload that awaits them. ] (]) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	Can you undelete ] I'm just starting the article and you deleted within a minute or so. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			==Code AFDs==
	:The ] apply at all times, regardless of the age of the article. Further, this was just an infobox and did not have a single line of text. It is clearly not ready for article space, and it is also likely that the subject is not sufficiently ] for an entry. Therefore I have ] it so that you can work to resolve these problems before reposting it, it is now at ]. <small>(in the future please use the "New section" tab to post new comments at the ''bottom'' of talk pages, thanks.)</small> ] (]) 20:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
			Hello, Beebs,

			I didn't know what to do with all of those Code AFDs because the one participant in the discussion argued "Merge or transwiki" but didn't provide a merge target article or explain what transwiki involved. I've closed thousands of AFDs but this is a new one for me, what is involved with a "transwiki"? Thank you for any knowledge you can share. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup>
	==City of Westminster==
			: is copying or importing an article to another wiki. It was more common in the early days. It's certainly not a normal AFD result, and to me it seems like we probably shouldn't do it unless whatever wiki it is targeted to actually ''wants'' it. My hope is that relisting them goes somewhere more conclusive, but it may be a longshot. ] ] 05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Beeblebrox, could you possibly restore the section on Banksy that was the subject of the edit war in the page on ]? Now that the page is blocked (for which many thanks) I am no longer in a position to edit it, and therefore unable to restore the section. I imagine that the anonymous IP edits will start up again as soon as the protection is removed, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. Thanks in advance for your patience and assistance - ] (]) 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Sorry, can't do that. I went with full protection to ''stop'' the edit warring, not to take a side in it. See . ] (]) 16:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
	::Oh dear, in that case how is one supposed to resolve an edit conflict? What is needed is surely some kind of 3rd party review, else we will simply have an indefinite edit war, which can be in no-one's interest. I requested the block in order to try to resolve things, not simply to freeze the page. My mistake perhaps? Thanks in advance for any clarification. ] (]) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Not a mistake, or I wouldn't have protected the page. However page protection is merely an administrative action and not part of our ] system. ], ] and ] are some of the options for soliciting outside opinions. ] (]) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

			:I saw those, relisted one and then went oh hell, no. Thanks JSS for the context on transwiki as I was similarly not clear. Hope to be more helpful in the AfD queue in the new year @]. ] ] 01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	It seems rather sad that "Asteuartw" is determined to get his own way despite the lack of support for his position. Is there any form of gentle system-generated discipline which can be imposed until an undertaking is provided to abide by the rules he is so fond of quoting ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Uh, no. We don't do "discipline". As I already said, ] is how disputes are resolved. ] (]) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

			== Deletion review for ] ==
	This is all very nice but "we" (whoever that means) seem ready to distribute commendations for what is perceived to be sensible use of Misplaced Pages so it would seem logical to have some method of showing disapproval.
			An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ''']]''' 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Attention needed at username change request ==
	However, having observed your comment in the next section, perhaps some constructive activity in the real world would be rather more appropriate than gatecrashing someone else's imaginary squabbles. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to ], but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up ] as soon as possible. Thank you. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- Template:CHU note -->
	== renewed edit-warring on ] ==

			== A barnstar for you! ==

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	As soon as the page protection expired, {{user\|Bluesurfers}} is at it again . Furthermore, I am certain he is a sock of {{user\|HOOTmag}}, see here . Thanks, ] (]) 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	:I am involved in dealing with a crisis at my job at the moment and it's not likely to be resolved for a few more days, so I really don't have time to look into this right now. Edit warring can be reported at ], sockpuppetry at ]. ] (]) 04:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
	==Talkback==
			\|-
	{{talkback\|Hasteur\|ts=04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)}}
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| If all admins and arbs were as sage as ''']''' WP wouldn't need ignoble venues such as Arbcom and RECALL. Every busy admin lives under a Sword of Damocles and when it falls the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater. Thank you again for being a constant voice of reason. ] (]) 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|}

			:I'm quite pleased that it resolved the way it did. Mike's generally ok, and I've even met him in real life. I did not want the matter to escalate, and we wouldn't see nearly as much escalation if more admins were willing to call out things like overzealous blocking. ] (]) 00:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Short apology ==
			::I've come to think that one of the most important qualities in an admin is the ability to say "{{xt\|Hands up, I screwed up, I was wrong, sorry}}". A lot of high drama, and a desysop or two, has been caused by that not happening. Similarly, a lot of people seem to like the "" at ANI when an admin is brought forward for screwing up in some manner, and people lose their heads and shout for a desysop and ban for a spelling mistake. ] ] ] 11:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I've often said that everyone makes mistakes, it is what they do after that is the real test of their character. Some people let their ego get in their way and just dig in, even when everyone agrees they were in the wrong. I saw that more than once in my time on the committee. It's painful to watch. ] ] 20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Beebs==
	.] ] 06:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
			Hello, Beeblebrox,

			I was getting used to JSS but, personally, you'll always be Beeblebrox to me and I'm happy that you returned to your original username. As for El Beeblerino? Well, give me a little more time, please. ;-) <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	== AfD review ==

			:It's kind of a joke based on how people were abbreviating my name to JSS. I probably won't keep the sig very long but the idea made me laugh. ] ] 22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	You the AfD with "No consensus". I'd like to nominate it again, since no references have been provided. According to what I read ], I don't know if I have to directly ask you to open it again, or I have to open a deletion review. I'll appreciate your help. Thanks. --] - (]) - (]) 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
			::Your new signature gave me a good chuckle :) Fun to see you back as Beeblebrox...now I can keep thinking about good 'ol ] everytime I see your username. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*] would be needed only if you believed that the closing was inappropriate and you wanted to challenge it. If you want to re-nominate in an attempt to arrive at a consensus you are perfectly free to go ahead and do that right now. ] (]) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
			:::All the cool kids' names start with El: myself, the ineffable name of God, others I'm sure... ] 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Ok, thanks.--] - (]) - (]) 10:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
			:Oooh, I didn't know that you could also change your username back to your old one! TIL. Some gaming and social media platforms don't let you reuse previously used names. — ] ] 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks all. I actually first tried to change in six years ago when ] died, but at that time users with as many edits as I have couldn't be renamed at all. By the time that changed I was on ArbCom and I didn't think ti would be kosher for a sitting arb to change their name so I sat on it until I wasn't on the committee anymore. I wasn't actually sure myself if I could change it back, and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be possible. ] ] 02:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~CSD~~ ~~proposal~~ ==		== Username block question ==

			Strange question, maybe (and for any talk page stalkers, completely unrelated to the current AN thread) - but I've seen a non-zero number of accounts warned/blocked for having usernames that referenced fictional organizations. (Think Strexcorp from ], or Pym Industries from the ] comics, or Pokemon characters). No spamming, at least not that I could see with my mortal eyes. Username policy has never really interested me, but this is pretty obviously an area you're experienced in- are these kinds of blocks/warnings in line with current policy/practice? If not, have they ever been? ] (]) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in ]. I'd love to hear your thoughts! ] (]) 04:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

			:I believe the well known test case for this was ], which sure ''looks like'' a real organization, but is not. ] is the relevant policy section, and it rightly makes no mention of blocking names that are fictional or made up organizations.
	== ] ==
			:Part of the issue is that a lot of people who warn users for their names are not well-versed in the ins and outs of what is and is not blockable. It's pretty much a daily issue at ]. The standard is that the name clearly represents a real organization. This is usually easily established by the user making edits that make the connection clear. While we can't expect everyone to get every single pop culture reference, just kind of looking like it might be the name of an organization is not sufficient reason to either warn or block. At most a person could ask "is this the name of a real organization?" in a case where there are no edits to make that clear. ] ] 01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Oh, that's interesting, thank you! I love test cases - funnily enough, I'm actually a username test case-ish on the Swedish Misplaced Pages. . (What I find more interesting, though, is that the admin who blocked me literally has a userpage of the erroneous blocks they made, complete with reflections and links to apologies . With all the conversations we've been having about admin accountability, a page like this is fascinating to read. Or, at least, it is to me.)
			::But no, this conversation was educational, thank you. I know people who do warnings and reports may not always know policies, but I've seen enough cases where an admin actually followed through on the block that I was wondering if it was an accepted course of action. Thanks again, ] (]) 06:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			== The Student Room question ==
	Hi Beeblebrox. You participated in ], in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on {{user\|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}}. The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at ]. ] (]) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

			Hi there, Sorry I had been on offline for the last couple of weeks and just seen today the decision to delete The Student Room page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Student_Room
	== A brownie for you! ==

			I have a declared COI with The Student Room and had been trying to propose an overhaul to that page as it was very poor. I do disagree that The Student Room itself doesn't seem to meet ] or ] - which I believe is demonstrated on the draft page on my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/User:ChrisN_at_The_Student_Room/sandbox

			The Student Room has been an important UK website for over 20yrs, with 6 million monthly users, 75M posts and is basically the only UK student community website. It has done much work with UK government, politicians and UK universities and is quoted widely. I'm sorry I wasn't around to point this out whilst it was up for deletion.

			Would you object to me submitting my sandbox page for consideration as a new page for The Student Room? or how would you suggest I approach this please? I believe contacting the deleting editor is what I am supposed to do in this circumstance, so I hope that is OK.

			Many thanks ] (]) 18:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			:If you submit it through ] I think that would be fine. ] ] 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Ah great. Will give that a go. Thank you! ] (]) 10:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			== AfD Close ==

			Hi there, Beeblebrox. I think you might have accidentally placed a period inside the wikilinks to the redirect on ]. Cheers, ] (]) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:{{fixed}} Good catch, and of course since I was using the XFD closer it screwed up the actual redirect too. ] ] 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			== A barnstar for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"		{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]		\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thank you very much for unblocking me and giving me a chance to help the website. ] (]) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thank you for being a voice for new editors. Not only is it one of the most important admin duties, but it's one of the most neglected. ] (]) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	\|}		\|}

			:Thanks. I haven't worked unblock requests in a while. and .... well let's just say it didn't work like this in the past. I had assumed that the problem was that most of them weren't being reviewed at all, turns out many if not most have a discussion, often involving multiple admins, but no resolution that ends with the appeal being either accepted or declined. It's bizarre. ] ] 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			== Courtesy notification ==
	You unblocked this user , did you log the conditions anywhere ? and if not should the be ? as they have now been archived off the users talk page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Well, Brandon is obviously aware of what he has agreed to, and I'm not sure there is a place for logging simple unblock conditions. ] (]) 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> This isn't technically about you, but I can't see your actions not being discussed. ] (]) 00:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:I don't know how big of an ask this is, but could you maybe consider IAR{{Efn\|I have no policy-based reason to mass-undo somebody's edits, especially now BANREVERT no longer applies, and nor do I have the clout to get away with it}} and rollbacking their article-space edits post unblock? I've spent the past hour combing my way through some of their additions to ], but given the close paraphrasing, the poor sourcing (check the history and you'll see I'm finding lots of material that was copied from one source and cited to another), could you maybe undo them before their edits get too embedded in the page history? If not, no worries, I'll try and spend the next month cleaning up after today's edits. It'll suck, but I mean, hey, it's not ], right? ] (]) 08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::He really went for it, didn't he? Some people... Anyway, looks like a good bit of it has already been dealt with, but I think the risk here is high enough to just restore to versions from before yesterday in most cases. ] ] 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Oh, gosh yeah. Some people just suffer from serious cases of not understanding the problems they cause. It's frustrating, too, because it's always users in good faith causing these issues... but I suppose I don't have the power to save anybody from themselves. Thanks for doing the restorations! ] (]) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Those edit summaries saying "undid revision because my account is unblocked" was all I needed to see. That's a new one on me. I think this is a ] case. ] ] 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think in this particular instance, they thought it was okay because their old edits had been removed under BANREVERT. Not a great idea, as it turns out, but as a maths person who suffers from chronic black and white thinking, I get the logic of "These were removed because X. X no longer applies. Therefore I can restore them". ] (]) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{notelist}}

			== Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! ==
	Hi Beeblebrox

			Dear Colleague, {{smiley}}<br />Hoping you're keeping well? All is well here; still busy creating articles and improving existing ones!<br />Thank you for all your helpful assistance throughout the year, and for everything you're doing for all of us!<br />All very best wishes to you and yours for 2025.<br />With kind regards;<br /> Patrick. ツ ]<sup>]</sup><sup>(become ])</sup> 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Things seem to have died down at ] to a point where I think we could draw a line under the proceedings. Those who posted concerns at the final ] section would appear to be satisfied to the extent that they have now added their names to the 'short' list of those who support the summary. I'd therefore like to invite you to do close this RfC/U, if you agree that such a move would be appropriate at this time. Regards. ] ] 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
	:It's looking pretty ready for a close. I'm at work right now, but I should have a chunk of time later on to write up a proper close. ] (]) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
	::Had a bit of time sooner than I thought, so I've done the close, but I've just been called back in. If nobody else gets to it I'll do the cleanup with listing template and such later. ] (]) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::{{done}} Yet another false alarm at work, so I've finished up delisting and archiving the results. ] (]) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

			== Happy Holidays ==

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
	== Comment ==
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" \| ]
	Hi. Um, will an editor be blocked indefinetly if they are caught doing the same thing (edit warring, personal attacks, etc.) over and over again? <font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
	:Eventually. ] (]) 07:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
			\|-
	== Rfa talk ==
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \|
	Beeblebrox...why do we leave what would in most cases be nothing but disruptive talkpage banter standing for the sake of...what exactly? I don't question your PP there as I did one edit and had no intention of reverting anyone...but hum...Malleus' comment was for what purpose you suspect? How did IT contribute to constructive dialogue?--] 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			----
	:As always, the protection has nothing to do with the dispute itslf and everything to do with stopping an edit war. The only other option was to liberally hand out short blocks to everyone involved. That seemed unlikely to help calm the situation. ] (]) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			'''Hello Beeblebrox, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
	::Fair enough....and I support the action but feel it was on the wrong version. Unconstructive talkpage commentary that is deliberately designed to insult ''should'' be removed.--] 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			''{{resize\|96%\|Spread the love by adding {{tls\|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
	== ] block ==
			\|} ] (]) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Unblocks ==
	Hey there. The above editor and I have worked together before on some genre-warring issues, and he asked me to look into his current block. I'm a little concerned that he was blocked along with the genre warrior he was engaged with; he was quite a distance from 3RR on that article. I've suggested that he ask for an unblock, but would also like to ask if you'd take another look and consider at least a reduction considering the attempted edits by the other editor did appear to be less than sourced from a quick glance. Cheers. ] <small>]</small> 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

	~~:If you~~ ~~have~~ ~~worked~~ on ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~issues~~ ~~before~~ ~~I'm~~ ~~sure~~ ~~you~~ ~~must~~ be ~~aware~~ that ~~the~~ ~~quality~~ of ~~the~~ ~~edits~~ is ~~not a relevant factor~~ ~~and~~ ~~3RR~~ is ~~not~~ an ~~entitlement~~, ~~especially~~ ~~after~~ ~~already~~ ~~having~~ ~~been~~ ~~blocked~~ ~~repeatedly~~ ~~for~~ ~~the~~ ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~. ] (]) 05:18, 22 December ~~2011~~ (UTC)		I was planning on unblocking Emdad Tafsir today (i.e., a few days after I ] on his talk page). If your goal is to clear the backlog, you should work on cases that other admins aren't actively handling. ] (]/]) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I can assure I meant no offense, but at the same time I really don't see what the big deal is. ] ] 21:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Fair enough. I feel that GMA's edits are generally in the right as genre warriors tend to be very single-minded - note that the opposing editor in this question basically said in at least one edit summary 'I'll be glad to discuss this but I'm going to make my edits first' - and believe that the block - after a single informal warning - is excessive in this case. I would encourage another look, if possible; I understand if you feel otherwise, however. ] <small>]</small> 06:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			::The big deal is I spent time and effort reviewing this unblock appeal, including reviewing the reasons for the block and past unblock requests, poring over bn-wiki edits via Google Translate, and reaching out to editors for comment. If I now have to worry that you're just gonna jump in and prematurely pull the trigger on unblocks I'm handling before I'm satisfied with the unblock request, why should I staff the unblock queue?
	:::I'm not sure what was unclear to you about my point that the quality of the edits is not the issue. Unless the other user was outright vandalizing that is simply not relevant. He was just blocked last month for edit warring. That block was for four days. I don't see how extending the block period by three days is excessive, and I don't see you saying that he wasn't, in fact, edit warring so I'm afraid I don't see any compelling case presented to reconsider. ] (]) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			::You also unblocked based solely on my statement that I would unblock, apparently without actually reviewing any of the underlying edits or issues, which in my view falls below the standard of what an unblocking admin should do. From looking at your contributions, it appears you've done something similar in ] where the handling admins were waiting for confirmation that the editor who was blocked for COI editing would commit to doing so properly going forward. ] (]/]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I disagree with your stance, but thank you for your consideration. ] <small>]</small> 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			:::You said the only thing you were waiting for was a comment from the blocking admin, and it was pointed out days ago that they are entirely inactive. I did look into it a bit deeper that the degree you matter-of-factly state that I did, I just don't feel it necessary to explain every last detail of my entire thought process when unblocking.
	:::::You might want to take another look at GAs talk page, we've already worked it out. He has agreed to limit himself to 1RR on genre related edits and I have unblocked him. ] (]) 21:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
			:::If, as you say, you were going to unblock them today, I fail to see the harm in them being unblocked yesterday. ] ] 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Beeblebrox, Gunmetal Angel is back at AN3 in ] for a genre war. He has not broken 3RR or 1RR, but he has been consistently reverting his preferred genres back into the article over an extended period. Perhaps that deal should have been for 1RR/week. Your original action seems fine, but I'm leaving the AN3 report for someone else to close. Thanks, ] (]) 14:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
			::::There was no harm in unblocking yesterday. I'll take you at your word that you dug into this case, but that just means that you duplicated at least part of my work for absolutely no reason other than to unblock someone a couple of hours early. ] (]/]) 22:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::<small>Note that the report is based on an incident from ''before'' the latest block, and has been declined as stale. ] (]) 19:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)</small>
			:::::So, I was quite ill for a few days just before the holiday, so I missed that you took it up yourself to close down an RFC that dozens of users had participated in in good faith, because you decided all on your own that it wasn't neutral enough. I'm kind of flabbergasted that you would turn around a few days later all bent out of shape about something as monor as this. ] ] 01:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Feel free to revert me. (Also, to point out, the ] was closed by @] for similar reasons). As someone who closes a lot of complicated discussions, however, I feel I should note that the discussion is going to be a confusing mess that will result in no consensus for anything, particularly since the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop on completely rewording the proposal. I also think that RfC is another example of you being too quick to pull the trigger. ] (]/]) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't paid super close attention to it but I did think there was a noticeable difference in "ready to go" between the two questions. But perhaps participants felt differently. Best, ] (]) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|5}} Several editors were asking for clarifications, the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop, and at least one admin said he wouldn't participate because "he lead plus the text of the first RFC, combined, is 13 paragraphs long" (and I'm sure other admins felt the same but just didn't say it). I understand Beeb is concerned by what he perceives to be an issue with the way admins are currently blocking and unblocking, but there was no rush to start an RfC here. ] (]/]) 16:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~rfc/u ?~~ ==		== Assistance ==

			Dear Admin
	I thought 3 of us (LibStar, mmeyers, and I) had certified the Hentzer RFC/U? What did we miss? ] 18:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:There is a section entitled "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" that must be signed by at least 2 users withing 48 hours of the RFC being listed. 48 hours after it was listed the section was blank. At the time I deleted it, yours was the only signature. ] (]) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::I think it's reasonable to think LibStar or mmeyers intended to certify but just didn't understand the format properly. I know they had included diffs of their attempts to address the situation -- is this a recoverable error? ] 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::I'm inclined to counsel you that this is an RFC that has very little chance of leading to the result you want, but if LibStar were to post here to that effect I could restore the page. ] (]) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::Interesting that you think I have a particular result in mind; but in any event I'll notify LibStar. ] 19:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Not sure what you think I meant by that, the RFC has another section called "desired outcome." Since you certified the RFC it doesn't require the use of imagination to determine that that was your desired result. ] (]) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Oops. Well, you can hardly me expect to discuss intelligently the contents of a page that someone went up and deleted! Seriously, I mostly suggested this as a means of support to LibStart and mmeyers who are getting very frustrated with the lack of communication; if there already is a fairly clear community consensus that an editor could work essentially in isolation I sincerely am not aware of it. I'll be fine with whatever the consensus turns to be. Mostly I wanted more input than was happening at WQA. ] 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	BeetleBrox, could you please restore this RFC. Nobody Ent, is willing to certify. ] (]) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
	:You guys really aren't making this easy. Hes's the only one who '''did'' certify it. It needs at least one more user to do so. Would you be that user? ] (])\|
	:: yes I would. ] (]) 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
	:: Lol. Meta-bureaucracy fail. Frankly, I don't see point of this RfC/U after I've read the WQA thread. It's absolutely the same thing, with the same participants. ] (]) 05:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Ok, I've restored it, please certify it ASAP. ] (]) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

			I am trying to make the correct statements to get unblocked. The only reason the blocking editor gave for the block was "persistent unconstructive edits". I have given long explanations for actions and an Admin said I was explaining too much. Therefore, I promised to not do what I was accused of doing. Now you say it is too brief. I am confused and do not know what the Admin's want from me. I assumed the point of a block was to force the person to stop doing something. I stated I would stop. What else needs to be said? Seriously, I am trying to do what is necessary but each admin has a different opinion and there is a new admin for each unblock review. I seek your help and input to resolve this issue. ISTCC ] (]) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Here's a cookie ==

			:I assume this is in reference to ]? None of the unblock requests you have made sufficiently and directly address the several points made in the block notice, cutting it down to one sentence that says essentially nothing isn't the right approach. ] ] 02:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"

	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			== Thanks ==
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| …For coming to a good conclusion on a situation I was a tad upset in. Also, I'll keep it cool on the ] bands. (= ] 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

	\|}
			Thank you for unblocking me the past 2 months have seemilgy dragged on i tell you i mever expected to wake up and find myself permanently blocked because im a sock of a guy ive never heard of ] (]) 21:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			:It can be rough when you're fighting socks and spammers all day long every day, sometimes admins get a little jaded and see things that they think make an obvious connection, when there really isn't one, and people like yourself get caught in the middle. It's unfortunate but the persistent presence of actual socks and spammers leads to a certain amount of less-than-justified blocks. Welcome back. ] ] 21:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::]. Can we please put them back in the drawer now? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That comment seems in line with their established area of interest. You said you saw an ''obvious behavioral match '', but nobody else did. I'm not sure that was the best post to make but I also don't see it as a smoking gun that proves you were right. ] ] 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm taking a more peaceful stance to the edit that you think makes me a sock hence why I left a message explaining ] (]) 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Another example of problematic blocking etc ==

			Hi Beebs,

			I noticed that upi had posted at ] about a block and review involving admin {{u\|UtherSRG}}. I wonder if you have noticed ] involving a block by the same admin that has been overturned. The admin good additions to the article, which have since been by {{u\|The Bushranger}} (the unblocking admin, who deserves praise and thanks for acting decisively) with the edit summary "Restoring version of the article made by the IP editor, as it is a much superior article, and WP:CITEVAR is irrelevant as only one citation existed in the original article". UtherSRG also from the user talk page of the other editor involved, despite recognising at ANI that Note that this initial responses defends a block that had by then been criticised by numerous othereditors at ANI. The block appeal of the IP editor was about 20 min after being made, and This all strikes me as an example of poor judgement from several admins that you might like to explore further given your recent discussions on the subject. This IP editor clearly has been contributing positively, and was hit with a two block and declined unblock for good additions to an article with citations over an absurd citation claim, and has contemplated leaving. The blocking admin as part of an apology. As an IP editor, I feel posting to the blocking or unblocking admin will provoke blowback rather than reflection, given the way some admins view IP editors as basically worthless / unpersons. Please, do continue to try to address poor admin decisions in this area. ] (]) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Truth ==
			{{collapse top\|not sure what made you think I wanted to continue this on my talk page, but I sure don't, ] ] 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			In regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT debate, I have to say this, I didn't come up with the name when you stated "nonsense" upon closing the incident, it was actually a reference from a different individual involved in a different AfD and I just want to give you a little note or clarification, because I've had enough with arguing in Armegon's issue.

			Origin of the name and where I got it from: ].

			This is not any warning or anything mean, but this is just a note as a reply until the closure of the Armegon issue at ANI. ] (]) 07:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}

			== User:Dillbob07 ==

			]; so, I'm just notifying you as a courtesy. I was going to suggest just blocking this user from uploading a files until they demonstrate a better understanding of IUP, but their last edit indicates there might also be other issues that need to be addressed. -- ] (]) 01:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Here's the mail, it never fails, it makes me wanna wag my tail, when it comes i wanna wail… MAAIIILLLLL!! ==

			:I'm getting the feeling this is a ] case. Either that or some really low-quality trolling. ] ] 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{YGM}}
	• ] 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC) •

			== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? ==
	== Porchcorpter ==

			I don’t understand why you redirected ]. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	I just noticed that ] is back, with a full copy of the original ban proposal in its history with Porchcorpter's rebuttals appended. He seems determined to keep a copy of it hidden somewhere in his user pages. Do you think we should do anything about it? -- ] (]) 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
	:*</small> replied by email. ] (]) 04:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Note:''' Does not violate ''any'' userspace guidelines, there are '''no''' personal attacks there now, no comments are even on contributors. And since it has been said in the ] to link it to the archive, it is now linked to the archive. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 08:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
	**Btw, in case, I've worked lots with Worm and I've got now much more knowledge about the policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages. I've even passed Worm's adoption and got the barnstar for passing. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 09:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
	:::Which makes one wonder why you wanted to recreate this page at all, if you've supposdly matured so much as an editor. Literally ''nobody'' besides you feels that the topic ban was problematic, and it expired some time ago anyway. But really, I don't give two shits why you recreated it and I certainly don't want to hear any of your nonsensical reasons for doing so. Keep your little bitter pity party of a page if you makes you feel like you've accomplished something. ] (])
	== AN/I Notice ==
	==Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard ==
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Way to go. The ] has been tossed, don't be surprised whn it comes back and whacks you in the noggin. ] (]) 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

			:It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. ] ] 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion==
	Hello, Beeblebrox. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:\|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:\|The discussion is about the topic ].}}<!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you. (]) -''''']''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">(]/])</span> 00:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
	:Whoa - the bent bits of wood are flying today! -- ] (]) 00:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:03, 1 January 2025

tracks of previous discussions

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40	Archive 41	Archive 42
Archive 43	Archive 44	Archive 45
Archive 46	Archive 47	Archive 48
Archive 49	Archive 50	Archive 51

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	3	4
RfD	0	20	20
AfD	0	0	0

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

−

December music

story · music · places

November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. Today is the last day for the election of arbitrators. Regarding my question to candidates like you, I found one so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. I'd still like to know what you think about the Copland posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I like your return to the well-known name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Totally my fault, I failed to anticipate that people would just start calling me "JSS" and I just did not care for that. I did make a new signature with another pop culture reference in it though. This time a bit less obscure. El Beeblerino 21:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That, however, is an area I am blind for. I'm quite happy that my real name is short enough to be useful, and while I accumulated dirt associated with it it never became enough for me to make me think about a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antonio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

AfD on Parents Worship Day

Can you describe which comment convinced you that the article should be kept? I only see the canvassed small accounts spamming the routine coverage by the WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources which is unhelpful when it comes to making claims about notability. CharlesWain (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I said I did not see a consensus to delete it, not that I personally believed it should be kept. Just Step Sideways 19:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But there was consensus to delete it since all of the established editors either voiced for delete or merge/redirect. Those who voiced for keeping the article were all SPAs or canvassed editors with no prior participation in AfDs. CharlesWain (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment. Just Step Sideways 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

comment on site ban request

Regarding your comment on motivation: given this comment made during the January 2024 appeal and the immediately following one, it seems that the editor is just following through with their announced plans due to their discontent on having editing restrictions. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I missed that at the time, but I am very aware of his yearly tradition of asking each January for restrictions to be lifted. I still think vanishing would be a viable option though.

I've seen the "block me or I'll do something to make you block me" approach a few times and I just think it's a really bad move. The user often comes back later like "ok I'm over it now, let me back in" and the answer is always a firm no. Just Step Sideways 22:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It comes a bit too close to suggesting a clean start for my taste. But in any case, the point was that it doesn't sound like someone who's primarily concerned about being unable to stop editing. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ACE2040

I'm really sorry they didn't let you back on the committee - it proves how short sighted the electorate is. Nevertheless you're still an admin and that's important for one with your experience, so don't let the result put you off from trying again next year. The overall results will come as a relief for many, but WP has its first non-admin arb and at least one or two with very little admin experience. There will be a lot of talk about this result. It proves again that with so few contenders it's relatively too easy to get a seat - all but 2 got a pass mark. IMO it's time to either redesign the electoral system or chuck the whole Arbcom thing out and replace it with something else. There is a better gender balance this time, but it remains to be seen which of them will be around when they are needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. While I'm obviously disappointed, I'm also pretty ok with it as the three top vote-getters are all people I am thrilled to see on the committee. Liz got NYB numbers, that's a hell of a mandate. I ran because the committee seemed to be in crisis and needed help, I'm now confident it will get that help.

It does concern me to once again see neutral non-votes be a clear deciding factor for some candidates. I'm not sure why the solution is to that. I also don't think Daniel not being an admin at this exact moment is really big news as he can have his tools back any time he wants them. Just Step Sideways 01:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there would have been a lot of tactical voting that affected the results. When I vote on such secret poll elections I vote only for the candidate(s) I want and usually neutral all the others - if I feel very strongly I might oppose one. At the end of the day, with the exception of your score, the rest of the result was for a fairly reasonable (one hopes) committee - if they fully understand the tasks and workload that awaits them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Code AFDs

Hello, Beebs,

I didn't know what to do with all of those Code AFDs because the one participant in the discussion argued "Merge or transwiki" but didn't provide a merge target article or explain what transwiki involved. I've closed thousands of AFDs but this is a new one for me, what is involved with a "transwiki"? Thank you for any knowledge you can share. Liz

Transwiki is copying or importing an article to another wiki. It was more common in the early days. It's certainly not a normal AFD result, and to me it seems like we probably shouldn't do it unless whatever wiki it is targeted to actually wants it. My hope is that relisting them goes somewhere more conclusive, but it may be a longshot. Just Step Sideways 05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw those, relisted one and then went oh hell, no. Thanks JSS for the context on transwiki as I was similarly not clear. Hope to be more helpful in the AfD queue in the new year @Liz. Star Mississippi 01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cartoys

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cartoys. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sounder Bruce 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	If all admins and arbs were as sage as this WP wouldn't need ignoble venues such as Arbcom and RECALL. Every busy admin lives under a Sword of Damocles and when it falls the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater. Thank you again for being a constant voice of reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite pleased that it resolved the way it did. Mike's generally ok, and I've even met him in real life. I did not want the matter to escalate, and we wouldn't see nearly as much escalation if more admins were willing to call out things like overzealous blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've come to think that one of the most important qualities in an admin is the ability to say "Hands up, I screwed up, I was wrong, sorry". A lot of high drama, and a desysop or two, has been caused by that not happening. Similarly, a lot of people seem to like the "thrill of the chase" at ANI when an admin is brought forward for screwing up in some manner, and people lose their heads and shout for a desysop and ban for a spelling mistake. Ritchie333 11:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've often said that everyone makes mistakes, it is what they do after that is the real test of their character. Some people let their ego get in their way and just dig in, even when everyone agrees they were in the wrong. I saw that more than once in my time on the committee. It's painful to watch. El Beeblerino 20:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Beebs

Hello, Beeblebrox,

I was getting used to JSS but, personally, you'll always be Beeblebrox to me and I'm happy that you returned to your original username. As for El Beeblerino? Well, give me a little more time, please. ;-) Liz 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of a joke based on how people were abbreviating my name to JSS. I probably won't keep the sig very long but the idea made me laugh. El Beeblerino 22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your new signature gave me a good chuckle :) Fun to see you back as Beeblebrox...now I can keep thinking about good 'ol Zaphod everytime I see your username. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

All the cool kids' names start with El: myself, the ineffable name of God, others I'm sure... El_C 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, I didn't know that you could also change your username back to your old one! TIL. Some gaming and social media platforms don't let you reuse previously used names. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I actually first tried to change in six years ago when Mark E. Smith died, but at that time users with as many edits as I have couldn't be renamed at all. By the time that changed I was on ArbCom and I didn't think ti would be kosher for a sitting arb to change their name so I sat on it until I wasn't on the committee anymore. I wasn't actually sure myself if I could change it back, and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be possible. El Beeblerino 02:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Username block question

Strange question, maybe (and for any talk page stalkers, completely unrelated to the current AN thread) - but I've seen a non-zero number of accounts warned/blocked for having usernames that referenced fictional organizations. (Think Strexcorp from Welcome to Nightvale, or Pym Industries from the Ant-Man comics, or Pokemon characters). No spamming, at least not that I could see with my mortal eyes. Username policy has never really interested me, but this is pretty obviously an area you're experienced in- are these kinds of blocks/warnings in line with current policy/practice? If not, have they ever been? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the well known test case for this was Bronx Discount Liquor, which sure looks like a real organization, but is not. ORGNAME is the relevant policy section, and it rightly makes no mention of blocking names that are fictional or made up organizations.

Part of the issue is that a lot of people who warn users for their names are not well-versed in the ins and outs of what is and is not blockable. It's pretty much a daily issue at UAA. The standard is that the name clearly represents a real organization. This is usually easily established by the user making edits that make the connection clear. While we can't expect everyone to get every single pop culture reference, just kind of looking like it might be the name of an organization is not sufficient reason to either warn or block. At most a person could ask "is this the name of a real organization?" in a case where there are no edits to make that clear. El Beeblerino 01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting, thank you! I love test cases - funnily enough, I'm actually a username test case-ish on the Swedish Misplaced Pages. . (What I find more interesting, though, is that the admin who blocked me literally has a userpage of the erroneous blocks they made, complete with reflections and links to apologies . With all the conversations we've been having about admin accountability, a page like this is fascinating to read. Or, at least, it is to me.)

But no, this conversation was educational, thank you. I know people who do warnings and reports may not always know policies, but I've seen enough cases where an admin actually followed through on the block that I was wondering if it was an accepted course of action. Thanks again, GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Student Room question

Hi there, Sorry I had been on offline for the last couple of weeks and just seen today the decision to delete The Student Room page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Student_Room

I have a declared COI with The Student Room and had been trying to propose an overhaul to that page as it was very poor. I do disagree that The Student Room itself doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB - which I believe is demonstrated on the draft page on my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/User:ChrisN_at_The_Student_Room/sandbox

The Student Room has been an important UK website for over 20yrs, with 6 million monthly users, 75M posts and is basically the only UK student community website. It has done much work with UK government, politicians and UK universities and is quoted widely. I'm sorry I wasn't around to point this out whilst it was up for deletion.

Would you object to me submitting my sandbox page for consideration as a new page for The Student Room? or how would you suggest I approach this please? I believe contacting the deleting editor is what I am supposed to do in this circumstance, so I hope that is OK.

Many thanks ChrisN at The Student Room (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If you submit it through AFC I think that would be fine. El Beeblerino 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah great. Will give that a go. Thank you! ChrisN at The Student Room (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

AfD Close

Hi there, Beeblebrox. I think you might have accidentally placed a period inside the wikilinks to the redirect on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Patraj. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Good catch, and of course since I was using the XFD closer it screwed up the actual redirect too. El Beeblerino 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for being a voice for new editors. Not only is it one of the most important admin duties, but it's one of the most neglected. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't worked unblock requests in a while. and .... well let's just say it didn't work like this in the past. I had assumed that the problem was that most of them weren't being reviewed at all, turns out many if not most have a discussion, often involving multiple admins, but no resolution that ends with the appeal being either accepted or declined. It's bizarre. El Beeblerino 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This isn't technically about you, but I can't see your actions not being discussed. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how big of an ask this is, but could you maybe consider IAR and rollbacking their article-space edits post unblock? I've spent the past hour combing my way through some of their additions to Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, but given the close paraphrasing, the poor sourcing (check the history and you'll see I'm finding lots of material that was copied from one source and cited to another), could you maybe undo them before their edits get too embedded in the page history? If not, no worries, I'll try and spend the next month cleaning up after today's edits. It'll suck, but I mean, hey, it's not the worst copyright unblock ever, right? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

He really went for it, didn't he? Some people... Anyway, looks like a good bit of it has already been dealt with, but I think the risk here is high enough to just restore to versions from before yesterday in most cases. El Beeblerino 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, gosh yeah. Some people just suffer from serious cases of not understanding the problems they cause. It's frustrating, too, because it's always users in good faith causing these issues... but I suppose I don't have the power to save anybody from themselves. Thanks for doing the restorations! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Those edit summaries saying "undid revision because my account is unblocked" was all I needed to see. That's a new one on me. I think this is a CIR case. El Beeblerino 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think in this particular instance, they thought it was okay because their old edits had been removed under BANREVERT. Not a great idea, as it turns out, but as a maths person who suffers from chronic black and white thinking, I get the logic of "These were removed because X. X no longer applies. Therefore I can restore them". GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no policy-based reason to mass-undo somebody's edits, especially now BANREVERT no longer applies, and nor do I have the clout to get away with it

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Dear Colleague,
Hoping you're keeping well? All is well here; still busy creating articles and improving existing ones!
Thank you for all your helpful assistance throughout the year, and for everything you're doing for all of us!
All very best wishes to you and yours for 2025.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Beeblebrox, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblocks

I was planning on unblocking Emdad Tafsir today (i.e., a few days after I noted that I would on his talk page). If your goal is to clear the backlog, you should work on cases that other admins aren't actively handling. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can assure I meant no offense, but at the same time I really don't see what the big deal is. El Beeblerino 21:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The big deal is I spent time and effort reviewing this unblock appeal, including reviewing the reasons for the block and past unblock requests, poring over bn-wiki edits via Google Translate, and reaching out to editors for comment. If I now have to worry that you're just gonna jump in and prematurely pull the trigger on unblocks I'm handling before I'm satisfied with the unblock request, why should I staff the unblock queue?

You also unblocked based solely on my statement that I would unblock, apparently without actually reviewing any of the underlying edits or issues, which in my view falls below the standard of what an unblocking admin should do. From looking at your contributions, it appears you've done something similar in at least one other case where the handling admins were waiting for confirmation that the editor who was blocked for COI editing would commit to doing so properly going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You said the only thing you were waiting for was a comment from the blocking admin, and it was pointed out days ago that they are entirely inactive. I did look into it a bit deeper that the degree you matter-of-factly state that I did, I just don't feel it necessary to explain every last detail of my entire thought process when unblocking.

If, as you say, you were going to unblock them today, I fail to see the harm in them being unblocked yesterday. El Beeblerino 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no harm in unblocking yesterday. I'll take you at your word that you dug into this case, but that just means that you duplicated at least part of my work for absolutely no reason other than to unblock someone a couple of hours early. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I was quite ill for a few days just before the holiday, so I missed that you took it up yourself to close down an RFC that dozens of users had participated in in good faith, because you decided all on your own that it wasn't neutral enough. I'm kind of flabbergasted that you would turn around a few days later all bent out of shape about something as monor as this. El Beeblerino 01:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me. (Also, to point out, the other RfC question was closed by @Barkeep49 for similar reasons). As someone who closes a lot of complicated discussions, however, I feel I should note that the discussion is going to be a confusing mess that will result in no consensus for anything, particularly since the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop on completely rewording the proposal. I also think that RfC is another example of you being too quick to pull the trigger. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't paid super close attention to it but I did think there was a noticeable difference in "ready to go" between the two questions. But perhaps participants felt differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Several editors were asking for clarifications, the oppose section was basically becoming a workshop, and at least one admin said he wouldn't participate because "he lead plus the text of the first RFC, combined, is 13 paragraphs long" (and I'm sure other admins felt the same but just didn't say it). I understand Beeb is concerned by what he perceives to be an issue with the way admins are currently blocking and unblocking, but there was no rush to start an RfC here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Assistance

Dear Admin

I am trying to make the correct statements to get unblocked. The only reason the blocking editor gave for the block was "persistent unconstructive edits". I have given long explanations for actions and an Admin said I was explaining too much. Therefore, I promised to not do what I was accused of doing. Now you say it is too brief. I am confused and do not know what the Admin's want from me. I assumed the point of a block was to force the person to stop doing something. I stated I would stop. What else needs to be said? Seriously, I am trying to do what is necessary but each admin has a different opinion and there is a new admin for each unblock review. I seek your help and input to resolve this issue. ISTCC 2600:1700:8BE1:7900:2D55:B574:3E91:E6B5 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to User talk:ISTCC? None of the unblock requests you have made sufficiently and directly address the several points made in the block notice, cutting it down to one sentence that says essentially nothing isn't the right approach. El Beeblerino 02:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me the past 2 months have seemilgy dragged on i tell you i mever expected to wake up and find myself permanently blocked because im a sock of a guy ive never heard of Wwew345t (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It can be rough when you're fighting socks and spammers all day long every day, sometimes admins get a little jaded and see things that they think make an obvious connection, when there really isn't one, and people like yourself get caught in the middle. It's unfortunate but the persistent presence of actual socks and spammers leads to a certain amount of less-than-justified blocks. Welcome back. El Beeblerino 21:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1265828071. Can we please put them back in the drawer now? _signed,Rosguill 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That comment seems in line with their established area of interest. You said you saw an obvious behavioral match , but nobody else did. I'm not sure that was the best post to make but I also don't see it as a smoking gun that proves you were right. El Beeblerino 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking a more peaceful stance to the edit that you think makes me a sock hence why I left a message explaining Wwew345t (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Another example of problematic blocking etc

Hi Beebs,

I noticed that upi had posted at user talk:Bradyb0412 about a block and review involving admin UtherSRG. I wonder if you have noticed this ANI thread involving a block by the same admin that has been overturned. The admin reverted good additions to the article, which have since been restored by The Bushranger (the unblocking admin, who deserves praise and thanks for acting decisively) with the edit summary "Restoring version of the article made by the IP editor, as it is a much superior article, and WP:CITEVAR is irrelevant as only one citation existed in the original article". UtherSRG also removed the edit warring notice from the user talk page of the other editor involved, despite recognising at ANI that both editors were edit warring Note that this initial responses defends a block that had by then been criticised by numerous othereditors at ANI. The block appeal of the IP editor was declined about 20 min after being made, and further posts on the user talk page make the reluctance to post a second unblock request clear. This all strikes me as an example of poor judgement from several admins that you might like to explore further given your recent discussions on the subject. This IP editor clearly has been contributing positively, and was hit with a two block and declined unblock for good additions to an article with citations over an absurd citation claim, and has contemplated leaving. The blocking admin admits to a default bias against IP editors as part of an apology. As an IP editor, I feel posting to the blocking or unblocking admin will provoke blowback rather than reflection, given the way some admins view IP editors as basically worthless / unpersons. Please, do continue to try to address poor admin decisions in this area. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Truth

not sure what made you think I wanted to continue this on my talk page, but I sure don't, El Beeblerino 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
In regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT debate, I have to say this, I didn't come up with the name when you stated "nonsense" upon closing the incident, it was actually a reference from a different individual involved in a different AfD and I just want to give you a little note or clarification, because I've had enough with arguing in Armegon's issue. Origin of the name and where I got it from: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65#c-Andy Dingley-20241028135400-Fram-20241028105400. This is not any warning or anything mean, but this is just a note as a reply until the closure of the Armegon issue at ANI. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

not sure what made you think I wanted to continue this on my talk page, but I sure don't, El Beeblerino 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT debate, I have to say this, I didn't come up with the name when you stated "nonsense" upon closing the incident, it was actually a reference from a different individual involved in a different AfD and I just want to give you a little note or clarification, because I've had enough with arguing in Armegon's issue.

Origin of the name and where I got it from: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65#c-Andy Dingley-20241028135400-Fram-20241028105400.

This is not any warning or anything mean, but this is just a note as a reply until the closure of the Armegon issue at ANI. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Dillbob07

My ping attempt was a resounding failure; so, I'm just notifying you as a courtesy. I was going to suggest just blocking this user from uploading a files until they demonstrate a better understanding of IUP, but their last edit indicates there might also be other issues that need to be addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling this is a CIR case. Either that or some really low-quality trolling. El Beeblerino 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?

I don’t understand why you redirected Mary-Catherine Deibel. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? Nnev66 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. Beeblebrox 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)